Michelangelo, Unfinished Slave
2,117 words
One of the perennial accusations against white colonial societies around the globe—in the Americas, Africa, and the Antipodes—is that they are morally illegitimate because other people were there first. This is what I call the “autochthony argument,” from the Greek “αὐτόχθων,” meaning “springing from the land,” i.e., indigenous. According to this argument, the original inhabitants of a land are its rightful owners (“finders-keepers”), and it is a violation of these rights for other peoples to displace them. Thus all European colonial societies, which more or less involve the displacement of indigenous peoples, are illegitimate.
The first thing to note is that those who appeal to the autochthony argument to dispossess white colonists quietly ignore it when dealing with the colonization of Europe by non-whites. In this case, it is Europeans who are indigenous and non-whites who are depriving indigenous people of control over their homelands. I feel for indigenous peoples around the globe, because as a white man, I too know what it is like to be displaced from one’s home by aliens.
Of course some argue that European populations aren’t really indigenous, since Europeans have invaded and colonized one another’s societies for thousands of years. The indigenous people of England, for example, were invaded and colonized by Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, and Normans before the present waves of Africans and South Asians. So why should the descendants of Anglo-Saxons or Normans be considered any more “indigenous” than Jamaicans and Pakistanis?
The problem with this argument, of course, is that it still admits that some Europeans are indigenous. Moreover, since all European peoples are descended from the same racial stock, which is indigenous to Europe, when Europeans move from one part of Europe to another, they are not “displacing indigenous populations.” They are the indigenous population, which is merely reshuffling itself.
This is not to discount the sufferings that Europeans have inflicted upon each other. But as bad as it was, it was not the displacement of an indigenous race by an alien one. It is simply different branches of the indigenous population fighting with one another, much like African and American Indian tribes fight among each other. If racial infighting deprives Europeans of the right to call themselves indigenous, why does this not apply to non-whites as well?
Some people claim that the non-white colonization of Europe is tit for tat, since Europeans colonized non-white countries. This argument might be plausible for England, France, and Spain, which had vast colonial empires, and for Holland, Belgium, and Portugal, which had smaller empires. It applies to a much lesser extent to Germany and Italy. Denmark and Sweden also had negligible overseas colonies.
But if European colonization was wrong, then so is non-white colonization of Europe. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Moreover, a punishment is a bad thing, and the advocates of diversity will never admit that non-white colonization is making Europe worse, although it obviously is. Finally, even if the historical injustice argument were valid, it would apply only to those European countries that had colonies, and it would grant rights of reverse colonization only to peoples that were once colonized, and only in the nations that once colonized them.
But the majority of European societies had no overseas empires: Ireland, Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia, Albania, Macedonia, Greece, Luxembourg, Monaco, Lichtenstein, Andorra, San Marino, etc. Yet all are targets for non-white colonization. Furthermore, the colonial powers are targeted for colonization by peoples they never colonized. It makes no sense that countries like Germany, Sweden, and Denmark, which never had colonies in the Muslim world, are suffering primarily from Muslim colonization.
Since non-white colonization of Europe cannot be justified as punishment for historical injustices, it is sold as a good thing because it increases “diversity” and because Europeans have a moral obligation to open their borders to immigrants who are fleeing poverty and oppression. The trouble with these arguments, however, is that they also support bad old European colonization, which increased ethnic diversity and was driven by poor people seeking resources and oppressed people seeking freedom. And if Europeans have to sacrifice ethnic homogeneity, political sovereignty, wealth, and freedom to accommodate non-white colonists, then why, exactly, was it wrong for Europeans to impose these costs on non-whites around the globe?
As tempting as it is to use the autochthony argument to defend Europe from non-white colonization, it has several problems.
First, it presupposes that mere presence in a territory is morally meaningful. The autochthony argument states that the first inhabitants of a land have a clean title. They did not have to displace anyone else through violence and trickery. Later occupants are illegitimate if they displace the first occupants and usurp their territories.
But if mere first presence in a territory confers rights, then why is this confined to biologically modern humans? Other animals are merely present where they live as well. Didn’t Cro-Magnon man displace the Neanderthal? Didn’t mammals displace the dinosaurs? Aren’t practically all living things illegitimate interlopers in previously occupied ecological niches, until we get back to the original denizens of the primordial soup? But does it make sense to regard the entire history of life on this planet as a ghastly moral offense? So much for evolution, I guess.
A Darwinist, of course, would argue that one organism can displace another only by being better adapted for survival. Thus evolution is a process of improvement, rather than a fall from an original state of innocence. Social Darwinists argue that the conquest of the dark races by whites is evolution in action. And, if the darker races are now turning the table and conquering whites, that too is evolution in action. For Darwinists, success in the struggle for power is by definition the best outcome, no matter who ends up on top.
The autochthony argument holds, in essence, that the first organism on the scene is in the right, and all who follow are illegitimate interlopers. The Darwinist would argue that the last organism on the scene is in the right, simply because it is successful, and that all that came before have no legitimate claims, simply because they failed. Both arguments are equally morally absurd, because there is more to right than just being present at the beginning or the end of a struggle for power.
Second, the autochthony argument does not distinguish between occupying and appropriating territory. Just being on a piece of land does not necessarily make it one’s own. To appropriate land, one has to do something. One has to make something of it, and in doing so, one takes responsibility for it.
Third, the autochthony argument also ignores the distinction between nomadism and settled occupancy. Often times, the first people were merely passing through. Nomads don’t own land, they merely inhabit it, as do the buffalo. They do little to it, and they take little or no responsibility for it. Nomads are less tied to a piece of ground than settled people, and nomads can share the use of the same region, whereas settled ways of life require exclusive ownership. This is not to say that nomads have no interests and rights that more settled people need to respect. But to own land, is it sufficient merely to be on it, or does one have to do something with it—i.e., to improve it and take responsibility for it?
Fourth, the autochthony argument overlooks the fact that if one owns land, one can therefore disown it. If indigenous peoples actually own their homelands, then they can alienate them to newcomers. For instance, not all North American natives were dispossessed through wars of aggression. Many natives began by selling some of their lands to newcomers, and only later did conflicts arise. Moreover, American Indians were sometimes dispossessed after losing wars they had started. There is a huge moral difference between stealing land outright and securing one’s own people by dispossessing and banishing aggressive and implacable enemies. Sometimes indigenous peoples lose their lands fair and square.
Fifth, the autochthony argument presupposes that legitimate ownership derives solely from the past (first occupancy) rather than from the future (what one is likely to do with it). For instance, even if the American Indians were the first people on this continent, they weren’t doing much with it. It strikes me as a moralistic absurdity to declare that the farms, factories, highways, power plants, towns and cities of America, plus all of the cultural and technological achievements of Americans, from bluegrass music to the space program, are somehow illegitimate because there was a thin population of Stone Age people on the continent when our ancestors first arrived.
Even if we grant that first occupancy confers rights, doesn’t later use also confer rights? And what is more important: how our people acquired our homelands or what we made of them? Given that the first occupants of all lands are primitives, whereas later occupants are usually more socially and technologically advanced, doesn’t the autochthony argument contain a built-in bias against civilization, progress, and the races that can produce and sustain them? Why should whites, of all peoples, accept such a stacked moral deck? Encounters between radically different peoples almost always end up badly. But at least if one creates something great, the suffering and strife need not be in vain.
Sixth, the autochthony argument is usually offered in bad faith, as part of a swindle. In the United States, for instance, American Indians who did not suffer from the acts of white colonists in centuries past, demand apologies and favors from whites (including recent immigrants), who never did anything to harm an Indian.
The last thing these Indians want is for whites to take their guilt trip so seriously that they erase the wealth they created and leave the continent as their ancestors found it. Instead, Indians wish to increase their share in the bounty of white civilization through moral blackmail, which just happens to impeach the legitimacy of that civilization’s very foundations. The Indians are untroubled by the moral contradictions of their position, however, because their aim is not justice but unearned wealth.
In truth, indigenous peoples who present themselves as “historical” victims aren’t victims at all. They are actually swindlers. And the whites they accuse of “historical” crimes are not criminals at all but victims of a moral swindle. Giving in to such moral blackmail does not right old ethnic wrongs (the victims and perpetrators of which are long dead). Instead it creates fresh ethnic wrongs: new victims and new perpetrators and new resentments to fester down through the ages. This can only impede amicable and just relations from emerging in the future.
What should the New Right’s position be on colonialism and indigenous peoples? We are universal nationalists. We hold that the best way to secure peace and amicable relations between different peoples is to give every people a sovereign homeland. Where this is not possible — for instance with tribal relict populations in the Americas, Siberia, and elsewhere — the just solution is give these peoples ethnic reservations with maximum local autonomy.
But notice that our aim is to secure a homeland for every people, not to secure the indigenous homeland of every people. That would be nice, but sometimes it is just not possible, and sometimes autochthony should be overridden by the greater good of creating homelands for otherwise homeless peoples.
For instance, there is every reason to reverse the recent colonization of Europe and European diaspora societies by non-whites. There is every reason to reverse Chinese colonization of Tibet. In every case, the colonists have homelands to which they can return. In every case, there are living injustices that can be solved by repatriating invaders. There is, moreover, every reason to create an independent Kurdistan or white South Africa, for in both cases a people is suffering right now because it lacks a sovereign homeland.
But one cannot make an ethnonationalist case to restore the Byzantine Empire, for the Byzantines no longer need a homeland, but the Turks do. Nor can one make an ethnonationalist case for returning Israel to the Palestinians, because the world would be better off if Jews confined themselves to a Jewish homeland. So in the case of Israel and Palestine, the solution is to have two states. A similar solution would be desirable for Europe’s gypsy problem. (Perhaps next door to Birobidzhan.)
The focus of politics should always be the future. We cannot right all the wrongs of the past, but we can create an ethnonationalist world order that minimizes new wrongs in the future.
27 Comments
Haha, may I ask why Birobidzhan for the Gypsies?
Because it is not good enough for the Jews.
Might makes right! Jews and blacks are always whining that the white race was always expanding and exploiting the “noble savage,” but they neglect to point out that we were invaded in western Europe by the the Huns, Muslims, and the Mongols before we began expanding. They started it, not us.
Good article. Another point is that the definition for what constitutes an ‘indigenous people’ is framed inconsistently in order to disadvantage Whites. For example, we now know that Eskimos (Inuits and Yupik) and Athabascans are not aboriginal to North America. Likewise Arabs did not predominate in most of the Middle East prior to the Middle Ages. In each case the arrival of these groups was facilitated through violence and ethnic displacement. Yet any ‘indigenous rights’ or ‘anti-colonialism’ activist would recognize them as indigenous to their present-day homeland, since that is the territory that they’ve inhabited for most of history, which they identify with, where they developed their particular society and culture.
Why then should European colonial groups (i.e. French Canadians, Anglo-Americans, Anglo-Australians, Amish, Afrikaners, Pennsylvania Dutch) be treated differently, when they’ve inhabited their present homelands for centuries, continually identified with them (even when living abroad, sometimes for generations) and have developed their own cultures, traditions, and even languages in some cases? Ask yourself: what part of Europe are hillbillies native to? Where is Pennsylvania German spoken? We see then that by any reasonable and consistent definition of ‘indigenity’, the White colonial populations of the New World ARE indigenous. And if they don’t agree, ask them whether they consider Afro-Americans, Jamaicans and Haitians as having any right to their homelands.
I’ve long considered the process of ethnogenesis one possible component to answering the question, “Who is indigenous?” It has it’s own problems, but it would make plenty of room for Anglo-Americans, Pennsylvania Dutch, Afrikaners, French Canadians, etc.
What it comes down to is forcing them to accept a consistent definition of indigenity, which they would never do, thus exposing their insincerity.
“We cannot right all the wrongs of the past, but we can create an ethnonationalist world order that minimizes new wrongs in the future.”
This, a thousand times. This is why I always get ticked off when Leftists call us “White Supremacists” We don’t want to be supreme over anyone, we just want countries for our people, Just like the Jews, the Bantus, and the Arabs. What the Hell is wrong with that?
What’s wrong with it is that it lays on ourselves an impossible task, while implicitly begging for the right to defend our interests.
“No really, it’s OKAY if we try ethnonationalism! It’s not what you’re thinking! Really! We won’t do all the things you think we do–like that Shoah Business stuff! We’re going to make it even more of a utopia where the wrongs of the past are righted than the SJWs and PC-bots have promised and failed to deliver. So, pretty please, will you agree to accept us trying that? Please? Huh? It’ll be a good thing, you’ll see! The future will be brighter!”
Ream that. Biology is struggle. Winners win. Losers lose. It’s not a collaborative/consensus process. I don’t care whether blacks or Jews or gypsies or Palestinians like it. Whining is winning only within SJW/PC polluted Globalist Establishment institutions.
Every last little seed and bug and bird pursues its interest, its programming, its destiny, for better or worse. Somehow for us, and us alone, “civilization” has come to mean asking inferiors for permission to excel, to contest, to strive. To win.
I have no interest in being supreme over anyone, I simply recognize the excellence in my people whom Jews and others are trying to erase, most vehemently in the past 100 years. “White supremacism” is not a label we need to defend against. It is a libel against our people by others who recognize our gifts and who have had “Germania/Nordica/America delenda est” as their tikkun olam for the past 100 years and then some.
Another detriment these arguments produce is political suppression of scientific research, especially in genetic archaeology, and anthro-whatever. Aboriginals use ethnic special case heritage laws to sequester bone and DNA discoveries from detailed expert attribution in place and time.
” Swindlers ” .That is exactly what the White guilt reeking, SJW, bourgeois bohemians that have transformed Western universities and media into their own personal fiefdoms and intellectual gulags are –moral swindlers
One gigantic 68’ers mutual admiration society of ego glow global compassion shysters and hucksters . They want to be see themselves as saints and to be seen as saints by others. But when it comes to where they make their homes and raise their children they suddenly develope a grasp of reality that is totally at odds with everything they claim to believe in and stand for.
Once ” diversity ” reaches the required point of critical mass, it becomes impossible to distinguish any difference between the White-flight migratory patterns of a diversity loving luvy duvy Liberal progressive or a member of the KKK.
Well, the way I interpret the question of indigenous legitimacy and rightful claim to territory, is whether the original peoples whose living spaces were those invaded by later alien races/tribes, still manifest a complete genetic presence on the territory or not.
In other words, whilst any percentage of the original inhabitants remain in existence, later invaders can have no claim to indigenous status nor territorial ownership. However, if the original inhabitants cease to exist genetically and, of course, culturally then a contemporary claim of indigenous legitimacy and territorial ownership passes on to those later invaders.
It’s as simple as that.
“The autochthony argument states that the first inhabitants of a land have a clean title. They did not have to displace anyone else through violence and trickery.”
This is a notable point.
Today, with the exception of a few tired anecdotes – Manhattan being bought for trinkets – the removal of peoples by trickery, ingenuity and stratagem is rarely ever discussed. It’s not a feature of ‘postcolonialism’ which speaks, when it speaks English, only with sincerity.
There should be an argument in here for defining ownership by good management as well. In this sense the legitimate heirs of a parcel of land should be the people who can maintain the land with the most biodiversity (a form of information and a measure of the health of land) at the highest human carrying capacity. There is probably some overlap between where populations can live most efficiently within an ecology and traditional notions of race. If you add the concept that the rightful heirs should also be capable of living in health (ie free of skin cancer, rickets, malaria, altitude sickness, etc) when exposed to the lands they claim as rightfully belonging to them, then the racial overlap is almost complete.
The White guilt ethnomasochistic SJW has evolved a bottomless pit entire arsenal of simplistic arguement’s and double standards which have been tailor made to fit the unique and distinct histories of every White country, and which are employed to bamboozle all white people into accepting they are under a moral obligation to become the first race and civilization in human history to collaborate in handing over our lands, heritage and identities to intruding alien and parasitical cultures and peoples.. It is a heads they win , tails we lose proposition. The game is rigged , and the fight is fixed.
The reason why Europeans in North America and Australia have no territorial claims is because Europeans , unlike the native British , are not indigenous to those lands .
The reason why the indigenous British have no territorial rights is because there is no such thing as indigenous British, due to the unwanted invasions of Romans , Saxons, Vikings and Normans who diluted who diluted the orginal founding stock by 15 % . The Left SJW have a special book listing the ethnic purity of all peoples on the planet and by what percentage each ethnic group has been diluted by the migration of other peoples thoughout human history. Apparently, according to the Establishment and the Left the indigenous British do not meet the level of 100 % genetic purity neccessary to qualify for the status of being indigenous, and this means they have no territorial claims.
And anyway the British had an empire and colonies so it’s pay back time and they deserved everything they get.
And anyway the Left are so full of love for their own people so they want to shower them with the irrefutable benefits of cultural enrichment and the colourful rainbow vibrancy of diversity
As for other Whites , such as the the Swedes , Norweigans and Danes who never had colonies , empires or invasions or ethnic dilution, the reason why they are also under a moral obligation to ethnically disempower themselves with Africans and Arabs into minority status , is because
” we all come out of Africa , and like dogs and cows , ” we all bleed red ”
And anyway , the Left who are of course all experts within this field can tell you that human migration is perfectly natural has been going on across the world for tens of thousands of years
( without any negative consequences whatsoever for those who are being overrun ) , Perfectly natural , like earthquakes, floods, droughts, plagues and war .
Er, let me see …. er , oh yes, I heard in the canteen at art college that things like borders, cultures, nations , ethnic groups , and race is just a meaningless artifical social construct that was recently invented by a bunch of far right wing evil White supremacists because the White race is uniquely evil and genocidal and as a moral justification to colonise and enslave the world.
So there we have it . The world consists of two groups. On the one side is a bunch of far right wing evil racists who control the whole world purely for the benefit of White people , and the other group consists of the 90 % of the world’s population consisting 6’2 billion ” poor ”
” oppressesed , ” discriminated against ” ” marginalised , and sobbing and weeping ” non-Whites , Africans , Arabs, Asians ; Mexicans etc etc , and the good White liberal progressive who has self-anointed himself as their spokesman and protector against the evil White man, who at any moment could turn into a lynch mob and genocide tens of millions of non-Whites and Jews
” Oh love me — love me , I’m a Liberal ”
What a bunch of vomit inducing, quarter educated , permanently adolescent little brats, who want all the benefits of Western civilzation which keep them living in the Liberal progressive style to which they have become accustomed , but without the historical peoples who made it all possible in the first place
I always thought my New England public school education set me and my peers up perfectly to think our ancestors were morally unassailable. On the ‘right side’ of the civil war, the world wars, etc, it seemed to me like no other part of the world could make the same claims about its own violent past.
The essay “The Root of Progressivist Sin” from a couple years ago (on alternative right) was helpful to me here; making the case that it isn’t so much a kind of “ethnomasochism” behind white anti-whites, but this idea that they are the moral actors inheriting a unique legacy of fighting racism.
I have been in a university classroom where every other student and the teacher criticized the very existence of borders. They were all nationals in a country with existing border protection. Not one would even accept their status quo as being practical or useful. Not one. I’ll never forget it.
Apparently, according to the Establishment and the Left the indigenous British do not meet the level of 100 % genetic purity neccessary to qualify for the status of being indigenous, and this means they have no territorial claims.
Och. Here we go:
There is no such thing as 100% genetic purity and the establishment damn well knows it. Go back far enough and every single tiny tribe, anywhere, is an admixture. It’s just that some of these tribes have stabilized over centuries or millenia into a new ethnic identity. And so it is with England and the ethnic English.
If the Normans and Vikings had just arrived in England 1950 and mixed their seed with whoever was there at the time, then maybe a case could be made that the resulting progeny are today mixed and impure (if one wants to put it that way).
But 1000 years = 50 generations. What you end up is called a stabilized variety, so long as no other cross-pollination has occurred. Tomatoes, zucchini, spinach, humans – it doesn’t matter. After a period of time you are a pure entity.
I appreciated Mr. Johnson’s ability to make a strong argument in a Platonian style. A major point here is that Europeans are in the bizarre position of attempting to justify their right to exist and maintain their living spaces. I think that in the final analysis, logic, argument and rationality have almost no place in regard to this subject. Rather, this is a time for emotion. We have a right to exist because we love our people. This is the only reason we need, and its the only impetus that matters. We have a right to exist because we demand that this right is ours, and we will exert enough force to make this happen, including defending every millimeter of our living space. The best justification for our right to exist is that we know with ironclad certainty that God commands this, it is his will and therefore our sacred responsibility to obey. No collection of words, no matter how intelligent, logical and persuasive, can possibly make the slightest dent in such an argument.
The non-Europeans that live in Europe presently and are coming in larger numbers now must have to return to their homelands. They must be drawn back willingly. They must be helped to go happily and joyfully to their own lands. At the moment- Turkish and Jewish and Muslim nationalistic and expansionist activities are causing trouble and must and will be made to end or change- willingly. Turks, Africans, Jews and Muslims generally and their European buddies are a pain in the ass and a threat to European existence and the world. They are the “Infidels’ that they like to call others so much. And They are the ones doing the “Crusade” they accuse others of. They are racketeers.
So far this has been a racket on average Europeans and a mostly one sided fight because most of the people leading the other side are still in the “Till every count should be proved” Hamlet stage.
Not everyone is in that stage.
We will not sacrifice Europe to accommodate anyone and their sensibilities.
Turks need a homeland too but they are depriving and eroding Europeans and Christians and others of theirs. …And they know it. They are not your ally. If they were they would act differently.
While some over there are trying to preserve Western Civilization and Christianity others are trying to destroy, erode and conquer it.
In a turf war between Turks and Greeks- we take Greek side……….for example.
That will not abide.
N
Of course I side with the Greeks over the Turks any day. And in 1919, when the Ottoman Empire was defunct, vast Greek populations were living in Asia Minor, and Constantinople was occupied by the British, I wish that the Europeans had swept the Turks out of Europe entirely and confined them to a rump Turkish ethnostate in Central Anatolia, hemmed in by Greater Greece (capital, Constaninople), Greater Armenia, Kurdistan, and why not Trebizond for good measure? It is too late for that now, unfortunately.
Think Big and holistic, Pastor.
We are on the side of the European. always. We don’t entertain, indulge or humor any other perspective… and we know why.
We no longer have that luxury.
I have been thinking about this post for a few days. While I basically agree with your argument, I do want to point out three things.
The word ‘autochthony’ has been enshrined in law and that is why Native Indians are using it, even more so in the states than Canada. There is no law in Canada saying you can’t own an eagle feather.
Secondly, use of land has in this day and age some very ecological considerations. Just who is doing all the polluting and deforestatation, fracking etc, etc.? It is not the Indians. What is wise use of the land? Destroying it is not what I would consider wise. I bet Savitri Devi ( and Pentti Linkola) would agree with me and detest the wolf cull or hunting for the sport of it ( not for food). One must remember that there is a scientific narrative that is in cahoots with big business and big government and just interested in money. Just as there are ranchers who don’t give a shit about endangered plants and animals without which our biodiversity woud be diminished.
Thirdly, I do think it is very appropriate to be attached to your country and culture. We in North America are more alienated from that idea than Europe.( we don’t hesitate to move for a job) Yet, at the same time, even if it is implict or unconscious we are attached to the land. If we were not, then it would not matter where we lived, so taking care of it and defending it is not an abstract idea. It is a viseral consideration; not only of ownership, but dwelling on this land and creating our culture.
The ‘Indians’ did as much damage to the environment as their limited means and population density allowed. In fact, in terms of total numbers of species driven to extinction, they may be more guilty than the race which invented ecology. As for attachment to your country and culture, the fact is that White Europeans have been living and developing a unique culture in North America for upwards of 400 years. Just because most people are deracinated and mobile -which by the way is also a problem in the mother continent of Europe and in ancient nations like Japan- does not mean that all White Americans don’t have roots in the place.
Gee, if what you say is true, then I guess we should have no problems and a certain tribe has not taken over our culture. We can all rest reassured that the American culture will save us.
Perhaps the Indians in the United States did damage, but they were pretty ecologically good in Canada and in fact where I live they are consulted as the best way of using fire to control forest fires and biologists consult them about animals and migrations and plants all the time. It has become documented evidence in many enironmental disagreements.
Tell me, when you look out upon a forest what do you see? Trees or lumber or a habitat?
When I look upon a forest I see trees and I see a habitat. The fact Indians are ‘consulted’ on environmental issues because they’re all experts sounds exactly like the sort of PC bullshit I encountered on a daily basis living in Canada, no different than how we ‘consult’ Jews on not being racist, or Blacks on how to make cool music, because it’s an established fact that they’re the racial experts, whereas Whites are only experts on exploiting everyone and everything. The whole ‘Native American-as-natural-ecologist’ meme has already been debunked many times, in fact there’s even an article here on CC: https://counter-currents.com/2014/01/the-american-indian-as-naked-naturalist/ , Mark Twain I believe also wrote about White fetishism of Indians as far back as the 19th Century.
The rest of your comment is too unintelligible to make any sense of. I certainly never said that we don’t have problems, or that exploitation of the environment isn’t one of them.
“Both arguments are equally morally absurd, because there is more to right than just being present at the beginning or the end of a struggle for power.”
This is very well put. I also liked the reductio ad absurdum argument of autochthony taken to an extreme of chemical soup. Of course a might equals right ethic would justify the present atmosphere of Jewish hegemony and its corollary of mass immigration for white countries. Neither the soup nor the Hebrews help us.
Attempting to argue for right via autochthony going back only so far as the last major migration that contributed to the white race is superfluous to simply just supporting the existence of the white race for what it presently is. I guess this could also be said of the argument of genetic distance justifying the white race. Drawing the boundary line of the proper extent of acceptable genetic distance to be the distance between the farthest two European groups is similarly arbitrary and simplified by simply supporting the white race.